Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1887-02-16

different llgnt. however,, uc was Winning
10 do what he could to fulfill the task i'm
passed upon him. With this pleasing and
entertaining prelude, Mr.. Russell took
up the history of the jury,
going back TO early English times,
when the GeighbOrs-co-swearerS-ofam man
accused of a crime could clear him OF the
pending charge by swearing that he was
not guilty. This very convenient method
was succeeded by the jury of the viSSinIgc,
which was one step further III the dlrec'
ton of the present system. This was III
time succeeded by the present system, IN
PRODUCED in England over four hundred
years ago.
The speaker here pointed out the widely
different functions OF Judge and jury. The
former decided upon points of law, while
the latter directed its attention to matters
OF fact. The Judge and Jury were OF equal
importance to each Other-we could DIS
pense with the judges as easily as with the
Iury-and as the latter had 10 deal with
the most pertinent facts, it would be
readily seen that it was highly important
to have the jury system brought TO a great
state of perfection. The speaker did not
know why the jury consisted of twelve;
he said the question had puzzled a good
MANY wise men. Either Coke or LlttletOn
had said the best reason they knew was
that inasmuch as there were twelve apOS-
ties, there ought also to be twelve jury
men. His hearers. he supposed, would
at once see the force and application OF this
reasoning. Another curious feature 0I the
Jury was that a unanimous verdict Of the
twelve men was necessary. In most Of the
affairs of life, the opinion of majority
ruled. 1t bad been aScertalned that IN
early days, Il jury consisted OF many more
than twelve, but that that many must
agree upon a verdict; by and by they begun
to lOp oil the superiiuOus members, and
thus reduce the number to that required
in the agreement on a verdict. "Ot
course" Mr.. Russell said, this leaves the
question OF why the number twelve was
fixed upon in reaching a verdict unSOlved.
| will leave that to your further consider
alton"
The speaker said that jurors ought to
have ut least two senSes-sight hear
ing. They could get along without touch,
taste and smell. he had tried cases where
one or more Jurors were very deaf, but they
had given no outward sign of it at the
time, and he had only ascertaincd the fact
after the verdict had been brought in. 1t
was important, also, that a Juror should be
capable of understanding the niceties OF
meanings and expression in the English
language. This was a kind OF deafness
which ought to be guarded against. Our
cases were much more complicated than in
former years, and were becoming more
and more complicated as u civilization
advanced, and the Importance of being
able to make nice distinctions
was therefore apparent. The speaker
thought intelligence was also a thing very
much to be desired, and illustrated his
point with one or two very humorous
stories. He thought also that a juror
should be able to keep awake; he would
touch upon this point very lightly, how
ever, for if juror became drOwSy it was
generally the fault of the lawyer.
The next point was in regard TO
the endeavOr, made especially in criminal
cases, to obtain as jurors men who knew
nothing whatever of the circumstances Of
the case, who had read nothing about it,
and had not formed an opinion. He as
sured his hearers hat o. of them need
fear of being rejected as q juror in West
Virginia because he knew 90 much, what
ever might be the practice in other States.
Mr.. Russell thought a juror ought to
also know something of the law-not in a
sufficient degree to enable I NAH To be his
own lawyer-but there ought to
be sufficient knowledge in a
general way TO enable n man
to guide himself in the affairs of life.
That knowledge could be gained by a study
of the history of our own country-and by
''our own country" he meant the early
history of England rs well as of America.
This knowledge would be imbibed almost
unconSciously, and yet would be sufficient
for the purpose he had indicated.
All jurors ought to be impartial and
honest. \ citizen sitting in judgment
upon the affairs of his neighbOr ought TO
be willing to render his verdict strictly in
accordance with the law and the evidence.
A juror ought also 10 go upon the
Jury without reluctance. One ought
TO be willing to perform this
most important duty; it should be taken
in the mature of n high privilege. 1t WAS
of the utmost Importance that the jury
be maintained in its purity, and
this was impossible except the citizen
stood BY it, and avoided feelings of repug-
nance and endeavOrS to invent Excuses to
avoid service. Ajuror ought also to have
and courage to take and maintain
a stand upon the questions brought before
him. This point vas illustrated in a most
complete way by a reference TO a celebrated
trial in the English courts d century or
more ago, under George Ill, in which a
jury persisted in bringing in a verdict IN
certain way, despite the orders Of the
court.
The jury ought not to yield TO public
clamOr. That applied with peculiar force
to this community, when the influences of
the strikes neceSsitated the continuance of
certain causes pending in the courts. The
Jury ought also TO be capable of softening
the force of tynnical laws and to temper
Justice with mercy. The public often
laughed at a jury for its sympathy, but a
well regulated sympathy was n very good
thing, and ought to be encouraged.
The jury system was not perfect-nOth-
ing of human origin was. One of the
evils Of the system was the fact that the
Jury was open to any one in The community
people whose sympathies were not with
the system, or who were recently from
foreign shores, where the system is IN
knOWn-and the result often was absurd
verdicts. But absurd yerdicts did not al
ways arise from this cause-sOmetimes
they came about by the jury not being put
in complete possession of the facts-a
point which Mr.. Russell very fOrcibly
illustrated.
In conclusion, the speaker thought the
large majority of verdicts were right, and
it was far better to have the system with
all its defects, than TO so to the continental
method ola single judge to pass upon all
things brought before him.
Next Tuesday DR.. John L. Diekey will
deliver an address upon The Human
Eye, its use and abuse"